Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/41/2020

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harvinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Dr. P. K. Sekhon & Mrigank Sharma adv.

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	41 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	07.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	28.02.2022

1.      Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.141-         142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Branch Manager.

2.      Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. office: 2^nd Floor, Plot # C-12, G-Block, BKC Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400 051      through its Managing Director.

          Now both 1  & 2 through their authorized signatory.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

1.      Harvinder Singh son of Late Sardar Avtar Singh, r/o House       No.1556, Second Floor, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

…Respondent/Complainant.

2.      Anand Sabarwal, #1440/1, Progressive Society, Sector 50,        Chandigarh.

3.      Munish Vahishth, Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company      Limited, SCO No.141-142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009

4.      Neeraj Sharma son of Sh.Megh Raj Sharma, R/o H.No.1147,     Second Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…Performa Respondent/Opposite Parties No.3 to 4.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by: (Through Video Conferencing):

 

Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 02.09.2020.

Respondent No.3 exparte vide order dated 26.06.2020.

Respondent No.4 exparte vide order dated 17.12.2020.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by opposite parties No.1 & 2, namely, Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited (appellants herein), against order dated 11.12.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which, their consumer complaint bearing No.51 of 2019 was allowed against opposite parties No.1 & 2 only in the following manner:-

“23]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs No.1 & 2. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed jointly & severally as under:-

1. To refund Rs.3 lacs to the complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 11.2.2008 till actual payment.

2. To pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

         The above said order shall be complied with within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- apart from above relief.”

2.                The facts as culled out from the impugned order passed by the District Commission are as under:-

“Briefly stated, the complainant was approached by Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 who gave assurance that in case the complainant invest the amount in their company then after 10 years, he will be entitled for double of the invested amount or interest @12% p.a. and life insurance for the period of 10 years. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs to OPs No.3 to 5 vide receipt dated 11.2.2008.  It is averred that after completion of 10 years, when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 for the release of his invested amount, he was shocked to get response of the Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 5.11.2018 (Ann.C-2) that due to non-payment of the renewal premiums, the policy got lapsed and further foreclosed and all policy benefits including sum assured got ceased. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 3.12.2018 to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging said act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is also stated that the complainant opted for Kotak Retirement Income Plan without cover i.e. Unit Linked Plan and his premium was adjusted against the said Plan, which he initially paid for another plan. It is further stated that the policy was issued on 28.2.2008 having policy term of 10 years.  Stated further that the complainant after paying the first premium, failed to pay the subsequent/renewal premiums under the policy, despite notices and accordingly, the policy was foreclosed as per the terms & conditions of the policy contract.  It is submitted that the complainant on 29.8.2014 wrote a mail to the OPs mentioning that the complainant is not interested to pay further premium and his premium may be refunded, which was denied by OPs vide email dated 6.12.2014 being against the terms & conditions of the policy in question. It is further submitted that the policy has already been foreclosed and therefore, nothing is payable to the complainant.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.3 has also filed reply stating that he served as Assistant Branch Manager with the Company and he left the company on 31.3.2008 and has no concern with the company since then.  It is stated that the policy in question has been issued by the company in response to the proposal made by complainant. It is further stated that the Opposite Party No.3 is not responsible for any liability of the Company. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.4 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte.  

         Opposite Party NO.5 has also filed reply and stated that on the assurance of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3 lacs to OPs NO.3 & 4 and thereafter the said amount has been deposited with Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2.  It is stated that as the OPs No.3 & 4 were the Senior Officers of OPs No.1 & 2, they have disclosed to the complainant that only one time premium has to be paid.   Other allegations have been denied for want of knowledge with a prayer to dismiss the complaint qua Opposite Party No.5.”

3.                The order passed by the District Commission has been assailed by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 – Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited on the ground that the District Commission failed to appreciate that despite sending of the renewal premium payment notice, respondent No.1/complainant, namely, Sh. Harvinder Singh failed to pay the due renewal premium, as a result whereof, the said policy had entered the lapse mode. It has further been stated that intimation letter dated 29.12.2010 was also sent to respondent No.1/complainant informing that the revival period under the said policy would end on 27.02.2011. It has further been stated that therefore, due to non-payment of premium within the revival period, the said policy was terminated vide termination letter dated 28.02.2011. It has further been stated that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the guidelines of IRDA dated 01.07.2010 are not applicable to the policy as the said policy commenced on 28.02.2008. It has further been stated that relevant policy of IRDA of 2005 is applicable to the fact of the instant case. It has further been stated that no surrender value had accrued to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is only after two years, the policy could have accrued any surrender value. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘UIIC Vs. Harchand Rai, 2004 (8) SCC 643 and LIC Versus S. Sindhu, 2006 (7) SCC 258 to contend that the terms and conditions of the policy are to be construed strictly and no outside interpretation is to be given to their meaning.

4.                On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.1/ complainant – Sh. Harvinder Singh, it has been stated that Regulation 9 of IRDA (Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority) Regulations 2010 clearly indicates that these regulations are attracted even to the policies, which are in existence on 1^st July 2010 and also to the policies, which are in the discontinued mode and the proceeds of such policies have not ben paid to the insured. It has further been stated that the policy of the complainant, alleged to have slipped to lapsed mode in the year 2011 and therefore, the case of the complainant is squarely covered under Regulation 9 of the IRDA Regulations, 2010. It has further been stated that the District Commission, after due appreciation of facts and law has rightly passed the impugned order against the appellants/opposite parties No.1 and 2 and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. So far as the contention raised that relevant policy of IRDA of 2005 is applicable to the fact of the instant case, it may be stated here that we are not convinced with such an argument. It may be stated here that the District Commission rightly held that the contents of Regulation-9 ibid clearly indicate that these regulations are attracted even to the policies, which are in existence on 1st July, 2010 and also to the policies, which are in the discontinued mode and the proceeds of such policies have not been paid to the insured. It (District Commission) further rightly held that since in the present case, the policy of respondent No.1/complainant, alleged to have slipped to lapsed mode in the year 2011 only as reflected in Annexure R-1/5 i.e. Lapsation Notice claimed to have been issued by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2, therefore, the case of respondent No.1/complainant was squarely covered under Regulation 9 of the IRDA Regulations, 2010. 

6.                So far as the next contention raised that the policy of respondent No.1/complainant did not attain any surrender value, it may be stated here that this issue has also been rightly addressed by the District Commission in its order. While dismissing the claim of respondent No.1/complainant, the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not disclose the fund value that the investment of respondent No.1/complainant had acquired at the time when the policy stood discontinued for non-payment of subsequent premiums. We further endorse the view expressed by the District Commission that neither any statement of account was placed on record by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 before the District Commission nor a particular date was disclosed, wherefrom it could be believed for the reason that a huge investment of Rs.3,00,000/- could not just diminish to Nil amount. It (District Commission) further rightly held that it was incumbent upon the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 to prove their version with a cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from their records, which they failed to do. Not only this, the appellants/opposite Parties No.1 & 2 further failed to adhere to Regulations 7, 8 & 9 of the IRDA July, 2010 regulations, as rightly held by the District Commission in its order.

7.                In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 is liable to be dismissed and the impugned order is liable to be upheld being sustainable in the eyes of law.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, with no order as to cost.

9.                Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10.              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

28.02.2022.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad